On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:40:58PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 4/13/22 9:00 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 4/7/22 9:07 AM, Yan Zhu wrote: > > > > We're moving sysctls out of kernel/sysctl.c as its a mess. We > > > > already moved all filesystem sysctls out. And with time the goal is > > > > to move all sysctls out to their own subsystem/actual user. > > > > > > > > kernel/sysctl.c has grown to an insane mess and its easy to run > > > > into conflicts with it. The effort to move them out is part of this. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhu <zhuyan34@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Given the desire is to route this via sysctl-next and we're not shortly > > > before but after the merge win, could we get a feature branch for bpf-next > > > to pull from to avoid conflicts with ongoing development cycle? > > > > Sure thing. So I've never done this sort of thing, so forgive me for > > being new at it. Would it make sense to merge this change to sysctl-next > > as-is today and put a frozen branch sysclt-next-bpf to reflect this, > > which bpf-next can merge. And then sysctl-next just continues to chug on > > its own? As-is my goal is to keep sysctl-next as immutable as well. > > > > Or is there a better approach you can recommend? > > Are you able to merge the pr/bpf-sysctl branch into your sysctl-next tree? > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/log/?h=pr/bpf-sysctl > > This is based off common base for both trees (3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17) > so should only pull in the single commit then. Yup. That worked just fine. I pushed it. Luis
